How Moral Foundations Theory
Succeeded in Building
on Sand: A Response to Suhler and
Churchland
Jonathan Haidt & Craig Joseph
Presented by Emily & Alexandra
Complaint #2:
There is no garage.
“…Both the theory’s
proposed number of moral
foundations and its
taxonomy of the moral
domain appear contrived,
ignoring equally good
candidate foundations and
the possibility of substantial
intergroup differences in the
foundations contents”
Haidt and Joseph Rebuttal
• MFT was NOT
supposed to be an
exhaustive list
• Create list of best
candidates
• It was a starting point
– takes a stab at bridging
the gap between
evolutionary
psychologists and
anthropologists.
There is no garage…WHICH IS TRUE
“…but the strength
of your design is
that future owners
can easily add
whatever rooms or
structure are
needed”
In fact, we are revising!!
• Challenge posted on
website
– http://moralfoundations.org/in
dex.php?t=challenges
• Offered to pay $1000 to
anyone who could prove
that another foundation
should be included
• Received 15 challenges
• Collecting data some
challenges
Possible Revisions
• Add a foundation related to liberty or
domination
• Investigating a foundation related to
wastefulness
• Considering revising the fairness
– These revisions would address Suhler and
Churchland’s concerns about boasting,
slackers/freeloaders, and industry
“It simply cannot be a complaint against MFT
that we did not start with the final list of
foundations. If all scientist took Suhler and
Churchland’s approach to theory construction,
there would be few new theories”
A Larger Scientific Issue
Complaint #2.2
• Suhler and Churchland: accusation of “ad hoc”
reasoning
– Suggest that it is better to take a more “principled”
approach
• Haidt and Joseph: taking a “principled” approach
is what has doomed other theories
• Constructing a theory starting with a principle
and then moving outward will give you an elegant
theory that will not survive
An Example
• “Imagine if taste scientists had been told that it was
“ad hoc” to create a theory of taste by looking at the
tongue and trying to figure out how many different
taste receptors it has. Shouldn’t taste scientists
proceed in a more principled way, such as by
analyzing the nutritional needs of human beings and
then positing a set of receptors that would guide
people to the right foods? And doesn’t the recent
discovery of a fifth taste receptor show that the
initially ad hoc list of four taste receptors was a
failure? No.”
An Example
• The best way to figure out how taste works is,
“…look at the tongue, pick the best
candidates, and let your fellow scientist show
you what you missed”
• Haidt and Joseph reject the idea that one
should take a principled approach rather than
a descriptive, naturalistic, explanatory
approach
Liberals and Purity
Complaint # 2.3
• Suhler and Churchland: liberals rely on the purity
foundation especially regarding the environment
• Haidt and Joseph: WE AGREE
– Never stated that a certain group is unable to use a
foundation
– Claims have always been about how groups rely on
different foundations
• Social Conservatives use purity foundation more than
liberals
Liberals and Purity
• Suhler and Churchland: if Haidt was to
measure a larger range of content that certain
gaps between conservatives and liberals
would disappear
• Haidt and Joseph: disagree…and have the
data/new methods to back it up
Libertarians and the Left-Right Axis
Complaint # 2.4
• Suhler and Churchland: MFT cannot handle
people who do not fit on the left-right axis
• Haidt and Joseph: This claim is easily disproved
• MFT has five dimensions which characterize
ideology. This is far more precise than a simple
left-right axis
– Libertarians score relatively low on all five dimensions
– Communitarians sore relatively high on all five
In Summary
• “Suhler and Churchland are correct that we
did not build a garage on the initial house, but
our modular design allows us to add one. We
have add one and are getting a lot of use out
of it. We are looking forward to further
expansions too.”
Discussion Questions
• Have Haidt and Joseph convinced you?
Complaint #3
• “…the mechanisms and categorical
distinctions proposed by the theory are not
consilient with discoveries in contemporary
neuroscience concerning the organization,
functioning, and development of the brain”.
• Analogy: You failed to extend your steel rods
down into the center of the earth
Complaint
• Shuler and Churchland feel that innateness hypotheses
need to be supported or consilient with evidence from
developmental psychology, neurobiology, and genetics
– This includes the identification of candidate genes and
neural systems
• Haidt and Joseph surprised that this level of evidence is
a common expectation
• Agree that innateness hypotheses should not be
incompatible with establish finding from the
aforementioned fields
Developmental Psychology
• Positive linkage with developmental
psychology reasonable
– One of main goals to explain different
development of children in different cultures
Genetics?
• Recent discoveries have found that although a
majority of traits are heritable there do not
seem to be genes “for” these traits
• Even height which has a .9 heritability does
not have a specific gene
• How can MFT then be expected to find genes
“for” reciprocity, loyalty, or authority
Genetics?
• Suhler and Churchland
claim that nativist
theories must be
supported by genetics
• Equivalent to
demanding all new
building dig foundations
to center of the earth
– It cannot be done!
– It might be impossible!
Neuroscience?
• Similar problem to
genetics
• Always presented
moral modules as
functional, not
physical, anatomical
or neurobiological
modules
Neuroscience?
• Suhler and Churchland assume that
neurobiological modules are presented in this
theory
– AKA specific neural circuits that correspond to moral
foundations
• This is not the case!
• “…we do not see how the phenomenon…can be
negated (or declared not consilient) with any
finding about neurons and circuits. It is just too
low a level of analysis…”
Conclusion
• Complaint is that no effort has been made to
provide genetic or neurologic evidence for
theory
• Haidt and Joseph agree with this claim
• “…but cannot see how this counts as a mark
against MFT.”
Discussion Questions
• Does the lack of genetic or neurological evidence
makes MFT a weaker theory?
– Should Haidt have to provide or strive to find evidence
of this sort?
– What implications does your answer have regarding
the production of knowledge in psychology?
• Do you think it is possible to find genetic or
neurologic evidence for MFT?
• Do you think Suhler and Curchland put forth such
a high standard to quash nativist theories?
Complaint #1
• Our concepts of innateness and modularity
are defective and cannot support the theory
(Moral Foundations Theory).
• Analogy: Your steel rods are not strong
enough to support the house (when in fact
the house is already standing).
“East Pole” vs. “West Pole”
East Pole: Northeast,
Harvard & MIT
-Haidt & colleages
-Supports nativist
perspective on mind and
behavior
-Nativist view: certain
things are innate at birth
West Pole: West coast, UC
Berkeley & UCSD
-Suhler & Churchland
-Prefers more empiricist
explanations
-Empiricist view: brain is
capable of learning from
environment, but is
largely a “blank slate”
Suhler & Churchland
Haidt, Joseph say that this pair of West Polers
have set an impossibly high bar for all nativist
theories, and then go on to say that MFT does
not meet that bar.
They conclude that this is not a criticism of MFT
specifically, but a declaration of their thoughts
about nativist theories in general.
They’re asking for the impossible
• Suhler and Churchland dismiss MFT for not
having enough evidence, but the evidence
they ask for is impossible to get.
• They ask for evidence that the traits they
target are “insensitive to environmental
influences” AND that these traits were
selected for during the human evolutionary
process.
They’re asking for the impossible
• Few to no psychological traits are truly hardwired, or “insensitive to environmental
influences”
• It is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove
that a trait was selected for
Suhler & Churchland criticize that their “weak”
nativism may apply to too many cognitive and
behavioral traits.
BUT
Haidt & Joseph are not bothered by this, given
that they’ve said from the start that one quality
of innate moral functioning is that it is shared by
a vast number of people.
…Not to mention, most cognitive/behavioral
traits are heritable, and thus draw from innate
traits.
Suhler & Churchland call their use of modularity
“murky” and lacking in computational and
neurobiological details
Haidt & Joseph acknowledge that they are not
neuroscientists & have not gone into great detail
about each module (yet). They agree that MFT is
not a complete theory covered by all levels of
analysis yet, but argue that rather than dismiss
an incomplete theory, one should consider
developing it.
Modularity  functional specialization
Functional specialization  a basic feature of
systems designed by natural selection
Different kinds of information are processed by
different cognitive systems
Applying this definition to MFT
• The moral mind includes at least five sets of
modules that are functionally specialized to
handle informational inputs related to social
events involving
1. care versus harm
2. fairness versus cheating
3. loyalty versus betrayal
4. authority versus subversion
5. sanctity versus degradation
COOTIES!
• Cooties is an example of highly structured
practices that are wide spread throughout
cultures and that emerge without
encouragement from adults.
• These practices likely did not emerge from
generalized social learning. Rather, they reflect
the existence of specialized modules which
make it easy to learn these practices.
Conclusion
• MFT assumes that nothing is “hard-wired” or
insensitive to influence.
• We have domain specific functionalized
cognitive mechanisms (like the purity
foundation) that make learning rules about
these areas easy.
Conclusion
• As for Suhler & Churchland, Haidt & Joseph
believe their 3 complaints about MFT to be
invalid: 2 of them are more like complaints by
West Polers about nativist theories in general.
• MFT is really an attempt to bridge the
nativism of evolutionary psych with the
constructivism of cultural psych.
Discussion Questions
• Even if the foundations for playing cooties are
innate in children, don’t they have to learn the
term “cooties” from someone?
• Can anyone think of possible ways to “prove”
that a trait/behavior is “insensitive to
influence”?
• Can Haidt & Joseph and Suhler & Churchland
both be somewhat right?